Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 671 | control, N = 341 | treatment, N = 331 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 67 | 50.77 ± 12.88 (25 - 74) | 50.17 ± 13.49 (25 - 74) | 51.38 ± 12.40 (31 - 72) | 0.705 |
gender | 67 | 0.856 | |||
f | 46 (69%) | 23 (68%) | 23 (70%) | ||
m | 21 (31%) | 11 (32%) | 10 (30%) | ||
occupation | 67 | 0.922 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.5%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (9.0%) | 4 (12%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
other | 2 (3.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
part_time | 11 (16%) | 5 (15%) | 6 (18%) | ||
retired | 15 (22%) | 7 (21%) | 8 (24%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
student | 1 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
unemploy | 21 (31%) | 12 (35%) | 9 (27%) | ||
marital | 67 | >0.999 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
divore | 7 (10%) | 4 (12%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
married | 14 (21%) | 7 (21%) | 7 (21%) | ||
none | 39 (58%) | 20 (59%) | 19 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.5%) | 1 (2.9%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
edu | 67 | 0.997 | |||
bachelor | 19 (28%) | 9 (26%) | 10 (30%) | ||
diploma | 12 (18%) | 7 (21%) | 5 (15%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
primary | 5 (7.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (21%) | 7 (21%) | 7 (21%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
fam_income | 67 | 0.822 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (6.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (6.0%) | 2 (5.9%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (7.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (4.5%) | 3 (8.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 10 (15%) | 6 (18%) | 4 (12%) | ||
2001_4000 | 9 (13%) | 6 (18%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (12%) | 5 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 6 (9.0%) | 2 (5.9%) | 4 (12%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (12%) | 5 (15%) | ||
medication | 67 | 57 (85%) | 30 (88%) | 27 (82%) | 0.512 |
onset_duration | 67 | 15.03 ± 11.66 (0 - 56) | 16.60 ± 12.84 (1 - 56) | 13.41 ± 10.23 (0 - 35) | 0.266 |
onset_age | 67 | 35.74 ± 14.16 (14 - 64) | 33.57 ± 12.91 (14 - 58) | 37.97 ± 15.21 (15 - 64) | 0.206 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 671 | control, N = 341 | treatment, N = 331 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 67 | 3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 3.18 ± 1.29 (1 - 5) | 3.15 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.936 |
recovery_stage_b | 67 | 17.91 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.76 ± 2.69 (9 - 23) | 18.06 ± 2.65 (13 - 23) | 0.651 |
ras_confidence | 67 | 30.25 ± 4.80 (19 - 43) | 29.56 ± 4.19 (19 - 40) | 30.97 ± 5.33 (20 - 43) | 0.232 |
ras_willingness | 67 | 12.03 ± 1.96 (7 - 15) | 11.85 ± 1.84 (9 - 15) | 12.21 ± 2.09 (7 - 15) | 0.458 |
ras_goal | 67 | 17.48 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.41 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 17.55 ± 3.05 (12 - 24) | 0.857 |
ras_reliance | 67 | 13.19 ± 2.87 (8 - 20) | 12.88 ± 2.64 (8 - 18) | 13.52 ± 3.09 (8 - 20) | 0.370 |
ras_domination | 67 | 10.00 ± 2.21 (3 - 15) | 10.44 ± 1.99 (6 - 15) | 9.55 ± 2.36 (3 - 14) | 0.097 |
symptom | 67 | 30.48 ± 9.93 (14 - 56) | 31.26 ± 9.78 (14 - 52) | 29.67 ± 10.16 (15 - 56) | 0.514 |
slof_work | 67 | 22.33 ± 4.80 (10 - 30) | 22.32 ± 4.35 (15 - 30) | 22.33 ± 5.30 (10 - 30) | 0.993 |
slof_relationship | 67 | 25.54 ± 6.01 (11 - 35) | 25.09 ± 6.14 (13 - 35) | 26.00 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 0.539 |
satisfaction | 67 | 20.49 ± 6.87 (5 - 32) | 18.97 ± 6.50 (5 - 29) | 22.06 ± 6.98 (5 - 32) | 0.065 |
mhc_emotional | 67 | 11.16 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.74 ± 3.35 (3 - 17) | 11.61 ± 4.26 (4 - 18) | 0.355 |
mhc_social | 67 | 14.69 ± 5.16 (6 - 26) | 14.94 ± 5.01 (7 - 26) | 14.42 ± 5.37 (6 - 26) | 0.685 |
mhc_psychological | 67 | 22.01 ± 5.92 (6 - 36) | 21.53 ± 5.33 (10 - 33) | 22.52 ± 6.52 (6 - 36) | 0.500 |
resilisnce | 67 | 16.58 ± 4.62 (6 - 27) | 16.21 ± 4.42 (6 - 24) | 16.97 ± 4.86 (7 - 27) | 0.503 |
social_provision | 67 | 13.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.59 (8 - 20) | 14.12 ± 3.34 (5 - 20) | 0.229 |
els_value_living | 67 | 17.25 ± 2.99 (5 - 25) | 16.62 ± 2.40 (12 - 22) | 17.91 ± 3.40 (5 - 25) | 0.077 |
els_life_fulfill | 67 | 12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.04 (5 - 17) | 13.82 ± 3.28 (4 - 20) | 0.011 |
els | 67 | 30.04 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 28.41 ± 4.45 (20 - 36) | 31.73 ± 6.25 (9 - 45) | 0.015 |
social_connect | 67 | 27.22 ± 9.24 (8 - 48) | 28.09 ± 8.11 (8 - 45) | 26.33 ± 10.33 (8 - 48) | 0.441 |
shs_agency | 67 | 14.34 ± 4.89 (3 - 24) | 13.68 ± 4.54 (3 - 21) | 15.03 ± 5.21 (3 - 24) | 0.260 |
shs_pathway | 67 | 16.57 ± 3.96 (4 - 24) | 16.09 ± 3.82 (8 - 24) | 17.06 ± 4.11 (4 - 23) | 0.319 |
shs | 67 | 30.91 ± 8.36 (7 - 47) | 29.76 ± 7.99 (13 - 45) | 32.09 ± 8.70 (7 - 47) | 0.258 |
esteem | 67 | 12.64 ± 1.46 (10 - 18) | 12.76 ± 1.50 (10 - 18) | 12.52 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.490 |
mlq_search | 67 | 14.88 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 14.85 ± 3.20 (6 - 21) | 14.91 ± 3.69 (3 - 21) | 0.947 |
mlq_presence | 67 | 13.46 ± 4.16 (3 - 21) | 13.38 ± 3.53 (5 - 20) | 13.55 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 0.874 |
mlq | 67 | 28.34 ± 6.79 (6 - 42) | 28.24 ± 6.03 (12 - 40) | 28.45 ± 7.60 (6 - 42) | 0.896 |
empower | 67 | 19.49 ± 4.17 (6 - 28) | 19.03 ± 3.84 (11 - 24) | 19.97 ± 4.49 (6 - 28) | 0.360 |
ismi_resistance | 67 | 14.58 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 14.26 ± 2.29 (11 - 19) | 14.91 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.342 |
ismi_discrimation | 67 | 11.39 ± 3.28 (5 - 19) | 12.38 ± 2.81 (5 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.46 (5 - 19) | 0.011 |
sss_affective | 67 | 10.09 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 10.74 ± 3.41 (3 - 18) | 9.42 ± 4.27 (3 - 18) | 0.169 |
sss_behavior | 67 | 9.81 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 10.65 ± 3.91 (3 - 18) | 8.94 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 0.081 |
sss_cognitive | 67 | 8.34 ± 4.06 (3 - 18) | 8.79 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 7.88 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 0.360 |
sss | 67 | 28.24 ± 11.09 (9 - 54) | 30.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 26.24 ± 11.62 (9 - 54) | 0.148 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.18 | 0.211 | 2.76, 3.59 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.025 | 0.300 | -0.613, 0.563 | 0.934 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.299 | 0.319 | -0.327, 0.925 | 0.353 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.071 | 0.447 | -0.806, 0.948 | 0.874 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.466 | 16.9, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.296 | 0.664 | -1.01, 1.60 | 0.657 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.039 | 0.645 | -1.30, 1.23 | 0.952 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.480 | 0.903 | -1.29, 2.25 | 0.597 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.865 | 27.9, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.41 | 1.233 | -1.00, 3.83 | 0.256 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.377 | 0.908 | -1.40, 2.16 | 0.681 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.104 | 1.269 | -2.38, 2.59 | 0.935 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.341 | 11.2, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.359 | 0.486 | -0.593, 1.31 | 0.462 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.800 | 0.331 | -1.45, -0.150 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.622 | 0.463 | -0.286, 1.53 | 0.187 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.4 | 0.544 | 16.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.134 | 0.775 | -1.38, 1.65 | 0.863 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.726 | 0.603 | -1.91, 0.457 | 0.236 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.30 | 0.843 | -0.349, 2.96 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.482 | 11.9, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.633 | 0.687 | -0.713, 1.98 | 0.360 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.239 | 0.427 | -0.597, 1.08 | 0.578 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.725 | 0.596 | -0.442, 1.89 | 0.231 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.376 | 9.70, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.896 | 0.536 | -1.95, 0.155 | 0.099 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.397 | 0.497 | -1.37, 0.578 | 0.429 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.18 | 0.696 | -0.184, 2.54 | 0.097 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.3 | 1.703 | 27.9, 34.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.60 | 2.427 | -6.35, 3.16 | 0.512 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.490 | 1.189 | -2.82, 1.84 | 0.682 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.265 | 1.659 | -3.52, 2.99 | 0.874 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.836 | 20.7, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.010 | 1.191 | -2.32, 2.34 | 0.993 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.465 | 0.679 | -1.80, 0.866 | 0.498 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.859 | 0.948 | -2.72, 1.00 | 0.371 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 1.024 | 23.1, 27.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.912 | 1.460 | -1.95, 3.77 | 0.534 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.35 | 0.953 | -3.22, 0.513 | 0.164 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.692 | 1.330 | -1.92, 3.30 | 0.606 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 1.189 | 16.6, 21.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.09 | 1.695 | -0.231, 6.41 | 0.072 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.790 | 1.310 | -1.78, 3.36 | 0.550 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.63 | 1.830 | -5.21, 1.96 | 0.379 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.650 | 9.46, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.871 | 0.926 | -0.945, 2.69 | 0.350 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.524 | 0.598 | -0.648, 1.70 | 0.387 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.12 | 0.835 | -2.76, 0.516 | 0.188 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.918 | 13.1, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.517 | 1.309 | -3.08, 2.05 | 0.694 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.11 | 0.984 | -0.815, 3.04 | 0.265 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.35 | 1.375 | -4.05, 1.34 | 0.332 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 1.067 | 19.4, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.986 | 1.520 | -1.99, 3.97 | 0.519 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.698 | 1.101 | -1.46, 2.86 | 0.530 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.92 | 1.538 | -4.93, 1.10 | 0.220 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.756 | 14.7, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.764 | 1.077 | -1.35, 2.87 | 0.480 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.349 | 0.742 | -1.11, 1.80 | 0.641 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.311 | 1.037 | -1.72, 2.34 | 0.766 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.499 | 12.3, 14.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.886 | 0.711 | -0.508, 2.28 | 0.217 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.388 | 0.534 | -1.43, 0.659 | 0.472 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.187 | 0.746 | -1.27, 1.65 | 0.803 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.507 | 15.6, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.29 | 0.723 | -0.125, 2.71 | 0.078 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.413 | 0.509 | -0.584, 1.41 | 0.422 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.332 | 0.711 | -1.73, 1.06 | 0.643 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.526 | 10.8, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 0.750 | 0.554, 3.49 | 0.009 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.971 | 0.531 | -0.070, 2.01 | 0.076 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.770 | 0.742 | -2.22, 0.684 | 0.306 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.087 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 0.923 | 26.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.32 | 1.316 | 0.737, 5.89 | 0.014 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.33 | 0.862 | -0.363, 3.02 | 0.132 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.03 | 1.204 | -3.39, 1.33 | 0.398 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.078 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.554 | 25.0, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.75 | 2.214 | -6.09, 2.58 | 0.431 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.138 | 1.233 | -2.28, 2.55 | 0.911 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.030 | 1.721 | -3.34, 3.40 | 0.986 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.837 | 12.0, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.35 | 1.193 | -0.984, 3.69 | 0.260 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.189 | 0.793 | -1.36, 1.74 | 0.812 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.446 | 1.107 | -1.72, 2.62 | 0.689 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.668 | 14.8, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.972 | 0.952 | -0.894, 2.84 | 0.311 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.487 | 0.565 | -0.621, 1.60 | 0.394 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.648 | 0.789 | -2.20, 0.899 | 0.417 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.414 | 27.0, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.33 | 2.015 | -1.62, 6.28 | 0.252 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.637 | 1.198 | -1.71, 2.98 | 0.598 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.144 | 1.672 | -3.42, 3.13 | 0.932 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.239 | 12.3, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.250 | 0.340 | -0.917, 0.418 | 0.465 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.273 | 0.387 | -0.484, 1.03 | 0.485 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.035 | 0.542 | -1.10, 1.03 | 0.950 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.590 | 13.7, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.056 | 0.840 | -1.59, 1.70 | 0.947 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.135 | 0.744 | -1.59, 1.32 | 0.857 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.016 | 1.040 | -2.06, 2.02 | 0.988 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.699 | 12.0, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.163 | 0.996 | -1.79, 2.12 | 0.870 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.086 | 0.831 | -1.54, 1.72 | 0.918 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.010 | 1.162 | -2.29, 2.27 | 0.993 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.174 | 25.9, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.219 | 1.673 | -3.06, 3.50 | 0.896 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.060 | 1.420 | -2.84, 2.72 | 0.967 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.026 | 1.984 | -3.92, 3.86 | 0.990 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.689 | 17.7, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.940 | 0.981 | -0.983, 2.86 | 0.341 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.180 | 0.651 | -1.10, 1.46 | 0.784 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.903 | 0.910 | -2.69, 0.880 | 0.327 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.443 | 13.4, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.644 | 0.632 | -0.593, 1.88 | 0.310 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.461 | 0.620 | -0.754, 1.68 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.639 | 0.867 | -2.34, 1.06 | 0.465 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.547 | 11.3, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.02 | 0.779 | -3.55, -0.491 | 0.012 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.897 | 0.544 | -1.96, 0.169 | 0.107 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.46 | 0.760 | -0.030, 2.95 | 0.062 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.065 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.639 | 9.48, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.31 | 0.910 | -3.09, 0.473 | 0.154 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.075 | 0.554 | -1.16, 1.01 | 0.893 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.765 | 0.774 | -2.28, 0.752 | 0.329 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.656 | 9.36, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.71 | 0.935 | -3.54, 0.124 | 0.072 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.112 | 0.626 | -1.34, 1.11 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.567 | 0.874 | -2.28, 1.15 | 0.521 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.063 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.79 | 0.684 | 7.45, 10.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.915 | 0.974 | -2.82, 0.994 | 0.350 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.866 | 0.563 | -0.238, 1.97 | 0.133 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.64 | 0.786 | -3.18, -0.097 | 0.044 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.830 | 26.6, 33.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.93 | 2.607 | -9.04, 1.18 | 0.136 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.773 | 1.448 | -2.07, 3.61 | 0.597 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.05 | 2.021 | -7.02, 0.908 | 0.139 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.058 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.76, 3.59], t(96) = 15.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.56], t(96) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.93], t(96) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.95], t(96) = 0.16, p = 0.873; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.85, 18.68], t(96) = 38.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.60], t(96) = 0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.23], t(96) = -0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.25], t(96) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.86, 31.25], t(96) = 34.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.83], t(96) = 1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.16], t(96) = 0.41, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.38, 2.59], t(96) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.85 (95% CI [11.18, 12.52], t(96) = 34.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.31], t(96) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.45, -0.15], t(96) = -2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.53], t(96) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.41 (95% CI [16.35, 18.48], t(96) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.65], t(96) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.46], t(96) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.96], t(96) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [11.94, 13.83], t(96) = 26.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.98], t(96) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.08], t(96) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.89], t(96) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.44 (95% CI [9.70, 11.18], t(96) = 27.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.16], t(96) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.58], t(96) = -0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.54], t(96) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.26 (95% CI [27.93, 34.60], t(96) = 18.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-6.35, 3.16], t(96) = -0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.82, 1.84], t(96) = -0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.52, 2.99], t(96) = -0.16, p = 0.873; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.32 (95% CI [20.69, 23.96], t(96) = 26.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.34], t(96) = 8.23e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.80, 0.87], t(96) = -0.68, p = 0.493; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.72, 1.00], t(96) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.09 (95% CI [23.08, 27.10], t(96) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.95, 3.77], t(96) = 0.62, p = 0.532; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.22, 0.51], t(96) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-1.92, 3.30], t(96) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [16.64, 21.30], t(96) = 15.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 6.41], t(96) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.92])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.36], t(96) = 0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-5.21, 1.96], t(96) = -0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.46, 12.01], t(96) = 16.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.69], t(96) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.70], t(96) = 0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.52], t(96) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.14, 16.74], t(96) = 16.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.08, 2.05], t(96) = -0.40, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.82, 3.04], t(96) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-4.05, 1.34], t(96) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.53 (95% CI [19.44, 23.62], t(96) = 20.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.99, 3.97], t(96) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.86], t(96) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-4.93, 1.10], t(96) = -1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.21 (95% CI [14.72, 17.69], t(96) = 21.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.87], t(96) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.80], t(96) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.72, 2.34], t(96) = 0.30, p = 0.764; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.26, 14.21], t(96) = 26.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.28], t(96) = 1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.66], t(96) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.65], t(96) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.62, 17.61], t(96) = 32.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.71], t(96) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.41], t(96) = 0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.06], t(96) = -0.47, p = 0.641; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [10.76, 12.83], t(96) = 22.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [0.55, 3.49], t(96) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.18, 1.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.01], t(96) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.68], t(96) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [26.60, 30.22], t(96) = 30.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.32, 95% CI [0.74, 5.89], t(96) = 2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.13, 1.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.36, 3.02], t(96) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.39, 1.33], t(96) = -0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.09 (95% CI [25.04, 31.13], t(96) = 18.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.75, 95% CI [-6.09, 2.58], t(96) = -0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.55], t(96) = 0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-3.34, 3.40], t(96) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 3.25e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.04, 15.32], t(96) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.69], t(96) = 1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.74], t(96) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.72, 2.62], t(96) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.09 (95% CI [14.78, 17.40], t(96) = 24.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.84], t(96) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.60], t(96) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.20, 0.90], t(96) = -0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [26.99, 32.54], t(96) = 21.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-1.62, 6.28], t(96) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.98], t(96) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-3.42, 3.13], t(96) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.19) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.76 (95% CI [12.30, 13.23], t(96) = 53.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.42], t(96) = -0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.03], t(96) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.75])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.03], t(96) = -0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.43e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.85 (95% CI [13.70, 16.01], t(96) = 25.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.59, 1.70], t(96) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.59, 1.32], t(96) = -0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.06, 2.02], t(96) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -4.79e-03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.85e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.01, 14.75], t(96) = 19.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.12], t(96) = 0.16, p = 0.870; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.72], t(96) = 0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-2.29, 2.27], t(96) = -8.70e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = -2.52e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.62e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [25.93, 30.54], t(96) = 24.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.06, 3.50], t(96) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.72], t(96) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -8.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-3.92, 3.86], t(96) = -0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = -3.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.03 (95% CI [17.68, 20.38], t(96) = 27.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.86], t(96) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.46], t(96) = 0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.69, 0.88], t(96) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.26 (95% CI [13.40, 15.13], t(96) = 32.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.88], t(96) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.68], t(96) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.65])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.06], t(96) = -0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.38 (95% CI [11.31, 13.45], t(96) = 22.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-3.55, -0.49], t(96) = -2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.09, -0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.17], t(96) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.95], t(96) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-9.15e-03, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.48, 11.99], t(96) = 16.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.09, 0.47], t(96) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.01], t(96) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-2.28, 0.75], t(96) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.36, 11.93], t(96) = 16.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.12], t(96) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.11], t(96) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.15], t(96) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.79 (95% CI [7.45, 10.13], t(96) = 12.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.99], t(96) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.97], t(96) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.64, 95% CI [-3.18, -0.10], t(96) = -2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.18 (95% CI [26.59, 33.76], t(96) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.93, 95% CI [-9.04, 1.18], t(96) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.07, 3.61], t(96) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.05, 95% CI [-7.02, 0.91], t(96) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 332.198 | 340.073 | -163.099 | 326.198 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 335.869 | 351.619 | -161.934 | 323.869 | 2.330 | 3 | 0.507 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 488.645 | 496.520 | -241.323 | 482.645 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 493.574 | 509.324 | -240.787 | 481.574 | 1.071 | 3 | 0.784 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 599.723 | 607.598 | -296.862 | 593.723 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 603.705 | 619.455 | -295.852 | 591.705 | 2.019 | 3 | 0.569 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 409.722 | 417.597 | -201.861 | 403.722 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 408.910 | 424.660 | -198.455 | 396.910 | 6.812 | 3 | 0.078 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 509.341 | 517.216 | -251.671 | 503.341 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 512.394 | 528.144 | -250.197 | 500.394 | 2.947 | 3 | 0.400 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 474.633 | 482.508 | -234.316 | 468.633 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 473.362 | 489.112 | -230.681 | 461.362 | 7.270 | 3 | 0.064 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 446.090 | 453.965 | -220.045 | 440.090 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 447.609 | 463.358 | -217.804 | 435.609 | 4.481 | 3 | 0.214 |
symptom | null | 3 | 710.259 | 718.133 | -352.129 | 704.259 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 715.119 | 730.869 | -351.560 | 703.119 | 1.140 | 3 | 0.768 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 578.526 | 586.401 | -286.263 | 572.526 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 580.081 | 595.831 | -284.041 | 568.081 | 4.445 | 3 | 0.217 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 627.487 | 635.361 | -310.743 | 621.487 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 630.433 | 646.183 | -309.216 | 618.433 | 3.054 | 3 | 0.383 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 669.143 | 677.018 | -331.572 | 663.143 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 671.631 | 687.380 | -329.815 | 659.631 | 3.512 | 3 | 0.319 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 533.244 | 541.119 | -263.622 | 527.244 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 536.974 | 552.724 | -262.487 | 524.974 | 2.271 | 3 | 0.518 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 613.109 | 620.984 | -303.555 | 607.109 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 617.200 | 632.950 | -302.600 | 605.200 | 1.909 | 3 | 0.591 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 641.258 | 649.133 | -317.629 | 635.258 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 645.432 | 661.182 | -316.716 | 633.432 | 1.825 | 3 | 0.609 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 567.774 | 575.649 | -280.887 | 561.774 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 571.971 | 587.721 | -279.985 | 559.971 | 1.803 | 3 | 0.614 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 489.367 | 497.242 | -241.684 | 483.367 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 492.735 | 508.485 | -240.368 | 480.735 | 2.632 | 3 | 0.452 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 489.673 | 497.548 | -241.837 | 483.673 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 491.918 | 507.668 | -239.959 | 479.918 | 3.755 | 3 | 0.289 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 503.592 | 511.467 | -248.796 | 497.592 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 499.859 | 515.609 | -243.930 | 487.859 | 9.733 | 3 | 0.021 |
els | null | 3 | 611.702 | 619.577 | -302.851 | 605.702 | |||
els | random | 6 | 609.518 | 625.268 | -298.759 | 597.518 | 8.184 | 3 | 0.042 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 699.677 | 707.552 | -346.838 | 693.677 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 704.972 | 720.721 | -346.486 | 692.972 | 0.705 | 3 | 0.872 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 586.935 | 594.810 | -290.467 | 580.935 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 590.469 | 606.219 | -289.234 | 578.469 | 2.466 | 3 | 0.481 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 532.716 | 540.591 | -263.358 | 526.716 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 537.100 | 552.850 | -262.550 | 525.100 | 1.616 | 3 | 0.656 |
shs | null | 3 | 685.988 | 693.863 | -339.994 | 679.988 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 690.108 | 705.858 | -339.054 | 678.108 | 1.880 | 3 | 0.598 |
esteem | null | 3 | 359.651 | 367.526 | -176.825 | 353.651 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 363.935 | 379.685 | -175.968 | 351.935 | 1.715 | 3 | 0.634 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 530.662 | 538.537 | -262.331 | 524.662 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 536.577 | 552.326 | -262.288 | 524.577 | 0.085 | 3 | 0.994 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 561.914 | 569.789 | -277.957 | 555.914 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 567.862 | 583.612 | -277.931 | 555.862 | 0.052 | 3 | 0.997 |
mlq | null | 3 | 668.679 | 676.554 | -331.340 | 662.679 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 674.654 | 690.403 | -331.327 | 662.654 | 0.025 | 3 | 0.999 |
empower | null | 3 | 546.497 | 554.372 | -270.249 | 540.497 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 550.542 | 566.292 | -269.271 | 538.542 | 1.955 | 3 | 0.582 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 479.219 | 487.094 | -236.609 | 473.219 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 483.924 | 499.674 | -235.962 | 471.924 | 1.295 | 3 | 0.730 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 509.223 | 517.098 | -251.612 | 503.223 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 506.750 | 522.500 | -247.375 | 494.750 | 8.473 | 3 | 0.037 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 529.062 | 536.936 | -261.531 | 523.062 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 529.558 | 545.308 | -258.779 | 517.558 | 5.503 | 3 | 0.138 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 540.779 | 548.654 | -267.390 | 534.779 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 541.156 | 556.906 | -264.578 | 529.156 | 5.623 | 3 | 0.131 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 540.252 | 548.127 | -267.126 | 534.252 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 539.962 | 555.712 | -263.981 | 527.962 | 6.290 | 3 | 0.098 |
sss | null | 3 | 738.637 | 746.512 | -366.319 | 732.637 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 738.159 | 753.909 | -363.080 | 726.159 | 6.478 | 3 | 0.091 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 34 | 3.18 ± 1.23 | 33 | 3.15 ± 1.23 | 0.934 | 0.024 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 17 | 3.48 ± 1.21 | -0.292 | 18 | 3.52 ± 1.22 | -0.362 | 0.911 | -0.045 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 34 | 17.76 ± 2.72 | 33 | 18.06 ± 2.72 | 0.657 | -0.146 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 17 | 17.73 ± 2.61 | 0.019 | 18 | 18.50 ± 2.62 | -0.218 | 0.381 | -0.383 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 34 | 29.56 ± 5.04 | 33 | 30.97 ± 5.04 | 0.256 | -0.513 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 17 | 29.94 ± 4.40 | -0.137 | 18 | 31.45 ± 4.46 | -0.175 | 0.314 | -0.550 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 34 | 11.85 ± 1.99 | 33 | 12.21 ± 1.99 | 0.462 | -0.360 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 17 | 11.05 ± 1.69 | 0.801 | 18 | 12.03 ± 1.72 | 0.178 | 0.093 | -0.982 |
ras_goal | 1st | 34 | 17.41 ± 3.17 | 33 | 17.55 ± 3.17 | 0.863 | -0.073 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 17 | 16.69 ± 2.81 | 0.395 | 18 | 18.12 ± 2.85 | -0.314 | 0.137 | -0.782 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 34 | 12.88 ± 2.81 | 33 | 13.52 ± 2.81 | 0.360 | -0.495 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 17 | 13.12 ± 2.33 | -0.187 | 18 | 14.48 ± 2.38 | -0.755 | 0.091 | -1.063 |
ras_domination | 1st | 34 | 10.44 ± 2.19 | 33 | 9.55 ± 2.19 | 0.099 | 0.578 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 17 | 10.04 ± 2.07 | 0.256 | 18 | 10.33 ± 2.08 | -0.505 | 0.686 | -0.183 |
symptom | 1st | 34 | 31.26 ± 9.93 | 33 | 29.67 ± 9.93 | 0.512 | 0.454 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 17 | 30.77 ± 7.82 | 0.139 | 18 | 28.91 ± 8.03 | 0.215 | 0.489 | 0.529 |
slof_work | 1st | 34 | 22.32 ± 4.87 | 33 | 22.33 ± 4.87 | 0.993 | -0.005 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 17 | 21.86 ± 3.96 | 0.230 | 18 | 21.01 ± 4.05 | 0.654 | 0.532 | 0.419 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 34 | 25.09 ± 5.97 | 33 | 26.00 ± 5.97 | 0.534 | -0.319 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 17 | 23.73 ± 5.02 | 0.473 | 18 | 25.34 ± 5.12 | 0.231 | 0.352 | -0.561 |
satisfaction | 1st | 34 | 18.97 ± 6.93 | 33 | 22.06 ± 6.93 | 0.072 | -0.775 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 17 | 19.76 ± 6.14 | -0.198 | 18 | 21.22 ± 6.22 | 0.210 | 0.486 | -0.367 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 34 | 10.74 ± 3.79 | 33 | 11.61 ± 3.79 | 0.350 | -0.485 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 17 | 11.26 ± 3.18 | -0.292 | 18 | 11.01 ± 3.24 | 0.333 | 0.818 | 0.139 |
mhc_social | 1st | 34 | 14.94 ± 5.35 | 33 | 14.42 ± 5.35 | 0.694 | 0.173 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 17 | 16.05 ± 4.70 | -0.373 | 18 | 14.19 ± 4.76 | 0.080 | 0.246 | 0.625 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 34 | 21.53 ± 6.22 | 33 | 22.52 ± 6.22 | 0.519 | -0.296 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 17 | 22.23 ± 5.40 | -0.210 | 18 | 21.30 ± 5.48 | 0.365 | 0.614 | 0.279 |
resilisnce | 1st | 34 | 16.21 ± 4.41 | 33 | 16.97 ± 4.41 | 0.480 | -0.341 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 17 | 16.55 ± 3.77 | -0.156 | 18 | 17.63 ± 3.83 | -0.295 | 0.404 | -0.480 |
social_provision | 1st | 34 | 13.24 ± 2.91 | 33 | 14.12 ± 2.91 | 0.217 | -0.547 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 17 | 12.85 ± 2.55 | 0.239 | 18 | 13.92 ± 2.59 | 0.124 | 0.220 | -0.662 |
els_value_living | 1st | 34 | 16.62 ± 2.96 | 33 | 17.91 ± 2.96 | 0.078 | -0.840 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 17 | 17.03 ± 2.54 | -0.269 | 18 | 17.99 ± 2.58 | -0.053 | 0.271 | -0.624 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 34 | 11.79 ± 3.07 | 33 | 13.82 ± 3.07 | 0.009 | -1.261 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 17 | 12.77 ± 2.64 | -0.605 | 18 | 14.02 ± 2.68 | -0.125 | 0.167 | -0.781 |
els | 1st | 34 | 28.41 ± 5.38 | 33 | 31.73 ± 5.38 | 0.014 | -1.280 | ||
els | 2nd | 17 | 29.74 ± 4.53 | -0.512 | 18 | 32.03 ± 4.62 | -0.115 | 0.143 | -0.883 |
social_connect | 1st | 34 | 28.09 ± 9.06 | 33 | 26.33 ± 9.06 | 0.431 | 0.478 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 17 | 28.23 ± 7.32 | -0.038 | 18 | 26.50 ± 7.50 | -0.046 | 0.493 | 0.470 |
shs_agency | 1st | 34 | 13.68 ± 4.88 | 33 | 15.03 ± 4.88 | 0.260 | -0.568 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 17 | 13.87 ± 4.13 | -0.079 | 18 | 15.67 ± 4.20 | -0.267 | 0.204 | -0.755 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 34 | 16.09 ± 3.90 | 33 | 17.06 ± 3.90 | 0.311 | -0.576 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 17 | 16.58 ± 3.20 | -0.289 | 18 | 16.90 ± 3.27 | 0.095 | 0.767 | -0.192 |
shs | 1st | 34 | 29.76 ± 8.25 | 33 | 32.09 ± 8.25 | 0.252 | -0.650 | ||
shs | 2nd | 17 | 30.40 ± 6.77 | -0.178 | 18 | 32.58 ± 6.91 | -0.138 | 0.348 | -0.610 |
esteem | 1st | 34 | 12.76 ± 1.39 | 33 | 12.52 ± 1.39 | 0.465 | 0.197 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 17 | 13.04 ± 1.40 | -0.216 | 18 | 12.75 ± 1.40 | -0.189 | 0.550 | 0.225 |
mlq_search | 1st | 34 | 14.85 ± 3.44 | 33 | 14.91 ± 3.44 | 0.947 | -0.024 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 17 | 14.72 ± 3.19 | 0.059 | 18 | 14.76 ± 3.21 | 0.066 | 0.971 | -0.017 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 34 | 13.38 ± 4.08 | 33 | 13.55 ± 4.08 | 0.870 | -0.064 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 17 | 13.47 ± 3.70 | -0.034 | 18 | 13.62 ± 3.74 | -0.030 | 0.903 | -0.060 |
mlq | 1st | 34 | 28.24 ± 6.85 | 33 | 28.45 ± 6.85 | 0.896 | -0.050 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 17 | 28.18 ± 6.26 | 0.014 | 18 | 28.37 ± 6.31 | 0.020 | 0.928 | -0.044 |
empower | 1st | 34 | 19.03 ± 4.02 | 33 | 19.97 ± 4.02 | 0.341 | -0.480 | ||
empower | 2nd | 17 | 19.21 ± 3.39 | -0.092 | 18 | 19.25 ± 3.45 | 0.369 | 0.974 | -0.019 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 34 | 14.26 ± 2.58 | 33 | 14.91 ± 2.58 | 0.310 | -0.330 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 17 | 14.73 ± 2.49 | -0.236 | 18 | 14.73 ± 2.50 | 0.091 | 0.995 | -0.003 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 34 | 12.38 ± 3.19 | 33 | 10.36 ± 3.19 | 0.012 | 1.230 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 17 | 11.49 ± 2.73 | 0.547 | 18 | 10.93 ± 2.78 | -0.343 | 0.550 | 0.341 |
sss_affective | 1st | 34 | 10.74 ± 3.72 | 33 | 9.42 ± 3.72 | 0.154 | 0.791 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 17 | 10.66 ± 3.07 | 0.045 | 18 | 8.58 ± 3.14 | 0.507 | 0.051 | 1.252 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 34 | 10.65 ± 3.82 | 33 | 8.94 ± 3.82 | 0.072 | 0.907 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 17 | 10.53 ± 3.24 | 0.060 | 18 | 8.26 ± 3.30 | 0.361 | 0.042 | 1.208 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 34 | 8.79 ± 3.99 | 33 | 7.88 ± 3.99 | 0.350 | 0.545 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 17 | 9.66 ± 3.25 | -0.515 | 18 | 7.11 ± 3.32 | 0.460 | 0.024 | 1.520 |
sss | 1st | 34 | 30.18 ± 10.67 | 33 | 26.24 ± 10.67 | 0.136 | 0.913 | ||
sss | 2nd | 17 | 30.95 ± 8.62 | -0.179 | 18 | 23.96 ± 8.82 | 0.529 | 0.020 | 1.621 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(92.42) = -0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.57)
2st
t(97.29) = 0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.86)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(87.17) = 0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.62)
2st
t(97.19) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.53)
ras_confidence
1st
t(76.20) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.87)
2st
t(97.90) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.46 to 4.49)
ras_willingness
1st
t(74.33) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.33)
2st
t(97.34) = 1.70, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.13)
ras_goal
1st
t(77.80) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.68)
2st
t(98.00) = 1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.46 to 3.34)
ras_reliance
1st
t(72.51) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.00)
2st
t(95.93) = 1.71, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.06, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.94)
ras_domination
1st
t(84.75) = -1.67, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.17)
2st
t(97.34) = 0.40, p = 0.686, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.68)
symptom
1st
t(69.41) = -0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-6.44 to 3.24)
2st
t(89.73) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-7.19 to 3.46)
slof_work
1st
t(71.18) = 0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.36 to 2.38)
2st
t(94.03) = -0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.84)
slof_relationship
1st
t(73.41) = 0.62, p = 0.534, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.00 to 3.82)
2st
t(96.77) = 0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.80 to 5.01)
satisfaction
1st
t(77.58) = 1.82, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.28 to 6.46)
2st
t(98.00) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.68 to 5.61)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(73.19) = 0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.72)
2st
t(96.59) = -0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.90)
mhc_social
1st
t(76.77) = -0.40, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.09)
2st
t(97.97) = -1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.04 to 1.31)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(75.75) = 0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.04 to 4.01)
2st
t(97.82) = -0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.58 to 2.72)
resilisnce
1st
t(74.55) = 0.71, p = 0.480, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.91)
2st
t(97.44) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.47 to 3.62)
social_provision
1st
t(76.71) = 1.25, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.30)
2st
t(97.96) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.80)
els_value_living
1st
t(75.07) = 1.79, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.73)
2st
t(97.64) = 1.11, p = 0.271, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.68)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(75.21) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.52)
2st
t(97.68) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.04)
els
1st
t(73.49) = 2.52, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.69 to 5.94)
2st
t(96.82) = 1.48, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.78 to 5.36)
social_connect
1st
t(70.85) = -0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-6.17 to 2.66)
2st
t(93.41) = -0.69, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.70 to 3.25)
shs_agency
1st
t(73.78) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.73)
2st
t(97.03) = 1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.99 to 4.59)
shs_pathway
1st
t(71.77) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.87)
2st
t(94.99) = 0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.49)
shs
1st
t(71.78) = 1.15, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.69 to 6.34)
2st
t(95.00) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-2.41 to 6.77)
esteem
1st
t(96.03) = -0.73, p = 0.465, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.43)
2st
t(97.69) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.66)
mlq_search
1st
t(82.61) = 0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.73)
2st
t(97.56) = 0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.11 to 2.19)
mlq_presence
1st
t(80.18) = 0.16, p = 0.870, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.15)
2st
t(97.84) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.65)
mlq
1st
t(80.82) = 0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.11 to 3.55)
2st
t(97.77) = 0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.03 to 4.41)
empower
1st
t(73.74) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.90)
2st
t(97.00) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.26 to 2.34)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(87.70) = 1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.90)
2st
t(97.17) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.68)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(74.85) = -2.59, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-3.57 to -0.47)
2st
t(97.56) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.41 to 1.29)
sss_affective
1st
t(72.17) = -1.44, p = 0.154, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.50)
2st
t(95.53) = -1.98, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-4.16 to 0.01)
sss_behavior
1st
t(73.93) = -1.83, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.15)
2st
t(97.12) = -2.06, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 1.21, 95% CI (-4.47 to -0.08)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(71.37) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.03)
2st
t(94.37) = -2.30, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 1.52, 95% CI (-4.76 to -0.35)
sss
1st
t(70.82) = -1.51, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-9.13 to 1.26)
2st
t(93.35) = -2.37, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-12.84 to -1.13)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(47.77) = 1.17, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.01)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(44.12) = 0.69, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.73)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(38.23) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.28)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(37.32) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.48)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(39.01) = 0.98, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.78)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(36.46) = 2.31, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.81)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(42.69) = 1.60, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.77)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(35.02) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.60)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(35.84) = -1.99, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.02)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(36.89) = -0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(38.90) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.44 to 1.76)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(36.78) = -1.02, p = 0.629, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.59)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(38.50) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.19 to 1.72)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(38.00) = -1.13, p = 0.533, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.40 to 0.97)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(37.43) = 0.91, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.13)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(38.48) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.86)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(37.68) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.09)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(37.74) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.26)
els
1st vs 2st
t(36.92) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.01)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(35.69) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.27 to 2.61)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(37.06) = 0.82, p = 0.837, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.21)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(36.11) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.96)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(36.12) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(51.34) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.01)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(41.50) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.33)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(40.22) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.73)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(40.55) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.73)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(37.04) = -1.13, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.57)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(44.44) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.05)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(37.57) = 1.05, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.64)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(36.30) = -1.55, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.26)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(37.13) = -1.11, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.56)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(35.93) = -1.40, p = 0.338, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.34)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(35.67) = -1.61, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.59)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(49.50) = 0.93, p = 0.716, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.95)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(45.40) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.27)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(38.79) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.23)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(37.79) = -2.40, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.13)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(39.67) = -1.20, p = 0.478, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.50)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(36.83) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.11)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(43.79) = -0.79, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.61)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(35.22) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.91 to 1.93)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(36.13) = -0.68, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.92)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(37.30) = -1.41, p = 0.331, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.29 to 0.59)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(39.55) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.46)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(37.18) = 0.87, p = 0.778, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.74)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(39.11) = 1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.12)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(38.55) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.94)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(37.91) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.86)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(39.07) = -0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.70)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(38.18) = 0.81, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.45)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(38.25) = 1.82, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.05)
els
1st vs 2st
t(37.34) = 1.53, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.08)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(35.97) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.65)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(37.49) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.80)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(36.44) = 0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.64)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(36.44) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.80 to 3.07)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(53.51) = 0.70, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.06)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(42.46) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.38)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(41.02) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.78)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(41.39) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.95 to 2.83)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(37.48) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(45.76) = 0.74, p = 0.930, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.72)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(38.06) = -1.64, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.21)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(36.65) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.05)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(37.57) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.16)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(36.23) = 1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.01)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(35.95) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.17 to 3.72)
Plot
